V. VASANTHA KUMAR S/O. LATE VENKATAVALLABHACAHR Vs. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA DEAD BY L.RS. (SRI THIMMAIAH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AND OTHERS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed by the 3rd Respondent in W.P. No. 4917/2008 by challenging the order of the learned Single Judge 17/8/2009.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in the writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner in the writ petition, the Petitioner's father enjoyed the said land which was confirmed by the authority and the name of the Petitioner's father was entered in the revenue record in the cultivator's column for the period from 1962 -63 to 1967 -68; that, earlier, some of the pahani records were in the name of Hanumanthadevaru and mentioned the name of Smt. Cheluvamma as Archaka. According to the Petitioners Cheluvamma was the mother of Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Appellant herein. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner's father was cultivating the land with the permission of Archaka and the person who has to perform the pooja at the temple. Since the Archaka was allowed as a tenant to cultivate the said land, that the Petitioners fathers name continued in the pahanies for the period 1969 -70 to 1973 -74 and even for the subsequent period up to the year 1992 -93; that Respondent No. 3 that is the Appellant herein moved an application seeking rectification of the pahani entry and to insert his name in the pahani before the Tahsildar, South Taluk and the Tahsildar gave a finding that the occupancy right had to be confirmed in favour of the Petitioner's father late. Munivenkatappa by his order dated 11/7/1977. The Petitioner thereafter filed one more application for grant of occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act') by contending that he was in possession of the land as on 1/3/1974. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 5/2/1976 referred the matter to Special Deputy Commissioner Inams as the land was coming under the Special Inams Act and the application of the Petitioner for grant of occupancy rights was not decided by the Tribunal,